Washington (CNN) -- If House Republicans have their way this summer, the Bush-era tax cuts would become permanent, "Obamacare" would begin to be dismantled and energy regulations would be rolled back.

On Friday, House GOP leaders unveiled their summer agenda with an eye on the fall campaign, including those and other items that probably won't become law, but will highlight the party's message on the economy.

In a memo to GOP members, Majority Leader Eric Cantor promised a vote on the most contentious issue --extending the Bush-era tax cuts that expire at the end of the year — before the House begins its monthlong summer break in August.

Republican leaders have been mum on the details, but the measure is expected to renew the current rates for some period and lay out a framework for tax reform that lowers rates across the board. Many of the details, however, including which deductions would be eliminated, would be put off until next year.

Cantor's memo says the House will focus in the coming months on "addressing job creation and the economy, reducing spending and shrinking the size of the federal government while protecting and expanding liberty."

In addition to the tax issue, the majority of items Cantor cites for floor action -- votes to repeal portions of Obamacare, roll back "job-inhibiting" red tape and press for more domestic energy production -- will land with a thud in the Democrat-led Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has made it clear that anything the GOP-led House passes dealing with taxes or deficit cuts is DOA in the Senate. With the November election five months away and almost zero motivation for bipartisan cooperation, the reality is that any major action will be postponed until after the election.

The fiscal cliff

Another thorny issue facing Congress: how to deal with automatic spending cuts to federal agencies scheduled to go into effect in January as part of the budget deal last summer. Republicans in the House and Senate are pushing bills to fence off any impact on defense with deeper cuts to domestic programs.

In a recent letter to GOP senators, Reid said the Republican line in the sand against new revenues means no deal on these issues can happen.
"Unfortunately, it appears that Republicans' blind adherence to tea party extremism is making it impossible to reach this sort of balanced agreement before the election," Reid wrote.

Cantor's memo leaves out how the House will deal with some lingering and politically charged issues before the election.

Both Democrats and Republicans say they want to avoid interest rates on student loans doubling in July, but there is no agreement yet on how to pay for legislation to head off the increase. The House passed a bill targeting what the GOP says is a "slush fund" that pays for public health programs as part of the health care law. Democrats want to offset the costs with a tax on some businesses. After the Senate failed to pass either party's preferred plan, the standoff continues.

Transportation, women, drugs, post office on agenda

While both chambers passed legislation -- the "Violence Against Women Act" -- that funds programs combating domestic abuse, the issue has become a political battle, with Democrats arguing GOP resistance to expanding protections to gays and lesbians and native Americans amounts to a "war on women." Republicans counter that Democrats hijacked the measure for political purposes and are picking a "fake fight" to appeal to female voters.

House and Senate leaders are also still negotiating details on a multiyear transportation bill that gives states billions of dollars for new infrastructure projects. But both sides are tangling over how long to authorize the federal program and the GOP's insistence that the bill include authorization for the Keystone pipeline that would transport oil from Canada down to the Gulf of Mexico.

There are some areas where bipartisan action is expected. After the Memorial Day holiday the House will take up a bipartisan intelligence bill, and legislation reforming how the Food and Drug Administration approves new drugs, a measure that passed overwhelmingly in the Senate. The House will vote on Oversight Committee Chariman Darrell Issa's proposal to overhaul the postal service, which will need to be reconciled with a different package the Senate passed this month.

Dialing up the rhetoric

The Republican agenda signals the rhetoric on the House floor in June and July will match the sticky Washington heat. The GOP is planning votes on energy bills most Democrats oppose, pushing for more drilling on public lands and removing federal regulations on energy producers.

"The Republicans have spelled out an agenda that fails to address jobs and will hold the middle class tax cuts hostage because the GOP refuses to let millionaires, Big Oil and corporations that ship jobs overseas pay their fair share," Elshami said.

While both parties eagerly await the ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on whether the president's signature health care law will stand, the House will vote to repeal a tax on medical devices that helps fund the law and overturn a provision of the law that would prohibit the use of personal spending accounts to pay for over the counter medications.

GOP congressional leaders have been huddling on how to address health care if the high court strikes down the law, but aides caution that nothing has been decided on what kind of reforms Republicans would pursue if they were given a clean slate.

Continuing their pledge to slash federal spending, the House will also vote on bills reducing federal agencies' budgets, but few of these bills are expected to pass the Senate, so both sides are gearing up for negotiations on a short-term bill to keep the government funded after the current authority runs out in September.

While there may be a flurry of activity this summer on Capitol Hill, it's safe to say the December "lame duck" session of Congress will be a jam-packed month where most of these issues will be resolved.

We haven't even seen the unending avalanche of money that's going to be deployed against Obama this fall. The rich and powerful will buy themselves a government that exists only to make the rich even richer, and fuck everyone else.

It's hilarious and terrifying to think that they're seriously trying to revoke the most significant accomplishments this administration has managed to squeeze out of this clusterfuck of a Congress in the last four years so as to return to the original policies that were responsible for causing the bulk of this god-awful crisis in the first place.

Yes! We need less regulations. Because that worked out so goddamn well for Deepwater Horizon.

And the Bush tax cuts! Those worked so well for raising how much money the lower classes have and for creating jobs. Nevermind that we had the Bush tax cuts for years and it did fuck all for either of those. If we just keep them up, eventually those rich people are going to start giving money away and not caring about themselves! Because that's how people get rich. It's not like rich people would just keep the extra money. Like we've seen for the past fucking decade. And the past, oh, forever.
If you want to give the lower classes more money, don't lower their taxes! Lower the taxes for rich people, and hope that those rich people are generous!

This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report presents the agency's projections of federal spending and revenues over the coming decades. Under current law, an aging population and rapidly rising health care costs will sharply increase federal spending for health care programs and Social Security. If revenues remained at their historical average share of gross domestic product (GDP), such spending growth would cause federal debt to grow to unsustainable levels.

What part of Obama's package contributes to that? My understanding is that healthcare costs in the US are fucked, and Obama's health care reform went a little way to mitigating that.

I'm reading the CBO's paper and jesus fucking christ you are full of shit

Let's see what each of those scenarios entail:

The Extended-Baseline Scenario

One long-term budget scenario used in this analysis, the extended-baseline scenario, adheres closely to current law. Under this scenario, the expiration of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher revenues relative to GDP.

So, if the tax cuts are removed, and the tax revenue under 'Obamacare' reforms, things aren't extremely bad.

The Alternative Fiscal Scenario

The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period.[that means they would expect Republicans to chuck it out] Most important are the assumptions about revenues: that the tax cuts enacted since 2001 and extended most recently in 2010 will be extended; that the reach of the alternative minimum tax will be restrained to stay close to its historical extent; and that over the longer run, tax law will evolve further so that revenues remain near their historical average of 18 percent of GDP.This scenario also incorporates assumptions that Medicare's payment rates for physicians will remain at current levels (rather than declining by about a third, as under current law)

So the terrible scenario presented by the CBO? A result of extended Bush tax cuts, status quo level of tax in general, and a repeal of the current legislation regarding healthcare.

Gee fucking whiz that 'bleak scenario' seems to almost have been written for the 'Republican Summer Wish list'!

I'm reading the CBO's paper and jesus fucking christ you are full of shit

Let's see what each of those scenarios entail:

So, if the tax cuts are removed, and the tax revenue under 'Obamacare' reforms, things aren't extremely bad.

So the terrible scenario presented by the CBO? A result of extended Bush tax cuts, status quo level of tax in general, and a repeal of the current legislation regarding healthcare.

Gee fucking whiz that 'bleak scenario' seems to almost have been written for the 'Republican Summer Wish list'!

But you're not taking the fact that Democrats are all radical secular muslim feminist homosexuals. They want to sell America to Europe (Who is secretly being led by the "hardcore socialist" Barack Hussein Obama (his name probably also contains "Allah" somewhere.))

But you're not taking the fact that Democrats are all radical secular muslim feminist homosexuals. They want to sell America to Europe (Who is secretly being led by the "hardcore socialist" Barack Hussein Obama (his name probably also contains "Allah" somewhere.))

I didn't think of that...
Git the gun, boy!
aint gonna be no dirty freedom lovers in my land of the free

Someone disagrees with my opinions? They must be dumb and they should die

More like: Someone wants to grind us all into dept, poverty and poor quality of life either so they can smile at the bible or exploit us for money. So we should let them know how fucking retarded they are.

YOU are a motherfucking retard, sir. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this shit is objectively bad for everyone but the single sick fuck who suggested it.
Another thing that confirms that you're absolutely slow and simple, is that i did not say what i intended to do to anyone. I was putting what HE wants to do to us all into a perspective that a walking, talking hick stereotype like you could understand. I underestimated your lack of intelligence and education, i apologise.

What this is, is the equivalent of hitting an iceberg in the middle of the mojave and proceeding to manage to sink and drown in its sand. It's virtually impossible and it's a feat for the human mind that anyone thinks that anything good can come out of attempting it, yet here you are.

TL;DR: I never said anything about murder, but metaphorical analogy to self-crippling was made. Good job reading son...

You do realize most of the regulations in place actually GIVE us the cheap energy costs that we get.

Some, not all. Also, either way when certain regulations give an unfair edge to bigger companies who can afford to comply with regulatory costs, or the regulations are made in such a way that a plant is allowed to pollute as much as they want as long as the people in a town aren't complaining about it, that shows that there needs to be some regulatory overhaul.

Someone disagrees with my opinions? They must be dumb and they should die

The passing of the aforementioned policies by the republicunts would result in catastrophic suffering and poverty, and maybe even loss of life.

I have no problems with some of the sick fucks in the republican party being killed so that the rest of the country can live in peace and health. Either that or lock them away from the rest of their life for treason.

Some, not all. Also, either way when certain regulations give an unfair edge to bigger companies who can afford to comply with regulatory costs, or the regulations are made in such a way that a plant is allowed to pollute as much as they want as long as the people in a town aren't complaining about it, that shows that there needs to be some regulatory overhaul.

Its called grandfathering, and that's why clean coal will never exist. And those regulations will never go through. Its the same reason why nuclear sites will always stay nuclear, because no one wants to cite new nuclear.

Its called grandfathering, and that's why clean coal will never exist. And those regulations will never go through. Its the same reason why nuclear sites will always stay nuclear, because no one wants to cite new nuclear.

Its just as much the public's fault as it is the regulations fault.

Yea, it is. Just like how 2000-2008 was as much the public's fault as it was Bush's fault.

More like: Someone wants to grind us all into dept, poverty and poor quality of life either so they can smile at the bible or exploit us for money. So we should let them know how fucking retarded they are.

YOU are a motherfucking retard, sir. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this shit is objectively bad for everyone but the single sick fuck who suggested it.
Another thing that confirms that you're absolutely slow and simple, is that i did not say what i intended to do to anyone. I was putting what HE wants to do to us all into a perspective that a walking, talking hick stereotype like you could understand. I underestimated your lack of intelligence and education, i apologise.

What this is, is the equivalent of hitting an iceberg in the middle of the mojave and proceeding to manage to sink and drown in its sand. It's virtually impossible and it's a feat for the human mind that anyone thinks that anything good can come out of attempting it, yet here you are.

TL;DR: I never said anything about murder, but metaphorical analogy to self-crippling was made. Good job reading son...

Your metaphorical analogy of self-harm doesn't coincide with their wishlist, just what you think will happen because you disagree with their actions/opinions. You are still implying they might as well harm themselves because of their stupidity.

Despite what you think, tax cuts/regulations/healthcare reform aren't one sided issues and it doesn't make you right because you believe in one side. There's pros and cons to every situation hence it's politics and there's 2 major political parties.

For example with the tax cuts, it may make you feel entitled to have the upper class taxed because you're in poverty or they're more well off than you are. What about small business owners trying to stay afloat? What about people who work hard for a living such as medical doctors? Did you consider what other people are entitled? It's a political issue because people do not agree on it.

As for the Republican party, there's a lot of issues with the mixed ideology but it doesn't mean an entire party is wrong because of a single individual being religiously crazy. Not all republicans are conservative or even religious at all.

TL;DR: Shooting oneself can be interpreted as suicide/murder, An opinion: A view or judgment formed about something.

I get kinda angry when republicans want to exploit me and leave me for dead when they're done. I'm fucked up like that. Imposing their shit on me should NOT be legal. Degrading quality of life or healt sector for monetary gain should not be legal. Running a countrys economy into the ground for personal gain should not be cool, yet here they are...

Yes! We need less regulations. Because that worked out so goddamn well for Deepwater Horizon.

And the Bush tax cuts! Those worked so well for raising how much money the lower classes have and for creating jobs. Nevermind that we had the Bush tax cuts for years and it did fuck all for either of those. If we just keep them up, eventually those rich people are going to start giving money away and not caring about themselves! Because that's how people get rich. It's not like rich people would just keep the extra money. Like we've seen for the past fucking decade. And the past, oh, forever.
If you want to give the lower classes more money, don't lower their taxes! Lower the taxes for rich people, and hope that those rich people are generous!

gheiuhagosdhgoajksjhdnaopgsf

The Bush tax cuts did not just apply to the rich, they were tax cuts across all income levels.

In the end the rich ended up shouldering the majority of the tax burden:

Consequently, from 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 percent dropped from zero percent to –4 percent, meaning that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS. (See Chart 6.) By contrast, the share paid by the top quintile of households (by income) increased from 81 percent to 85 percent.

Expanding the data to include all federal taxes, the share paid by the top quintile edged up from 66.6 percent in 2000 to 67.1 percent in 2004, while the bottom 40 percent's share dipped from 5.9 percent to 5.4 percent. Clearly, the tax cuts have led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less.[18]

If the bush tax cuts expire, everyone faces a tax hike, not just the rich.

and Deepwater Horizon had nothing to do with laissez-faire. Laissez-faire didn't exist now, then, or at any time. There were countless regulations they had to follow. The regulations failed, it had nothing to do with lassez-faire